I don’t remember discussing or debating the morality of abortions in any of my philosophy and ethics classes in 1969-70 while in college.

Abortions were not generally acceptable at that time and could not be performed legally except in cases threatening the mother’s life.

In 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions on the request on the woman.

States that had statues making it a crime to have abortions were overturned by U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973. At the time Roe was decided, most states severely restricted or banned the practice of abortion.

Based on these decisions by very learned men and women, debating the topic of the morality of abortions would appear to be moot and pointless.

I guess this is a question of morality or the standards of conduct in a society, many of which are subjective and prone to continual changes based on society ever-changing moods.

Are more people empathic to abortion now? It would appear that they are based on the facts that abortions are now legal in all states in the USA. However, they are still illegal in many countries (Brazil, Chile, Ireland, Nigeria, Iran…), except to save a women’s life and a few other limited cases. You will note that were abortions are illegal, these countries are full of religious fanatics.

Morality is ever-changing; for example, nude sunbathing on a public beech was illegal in all fifty states until Florida’s State Governor Rick Scott approved a bill allowing it in 2015. Topless sunbathing is now allowed in 33 states. However, completely nude sunbathing on public beaches is only allowed in a handful of places e.g., Kehena Black Sand Beach - Hawaii.

Consequentialism is just another word for utilitarianism, which is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. It is the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

Again, whether abortion is morally right or wrong cannot be answered by philosophy.

It is a personal choice as long as statutorily legal, usually the choice of the women who must carry the baby in her womb for 9 months, except where the man and women initially wanted the baby. Then it becomes a more difficult dilemma; but the women can still abort the baby legally in most states without the father’s consent.

George1949 wrote:Based on these decisions by very learned men and women, debating the topic of the morality of abortions would appear to be moot and pointless.

O-oh. You are mixing legality with morality. A big source of confounding philosophical issues.

It is moot and pointless if you expect an outcome whether we are allowed to do it or not. We CAN do it, perform abortions, because it is legal. But SHOULD we do it has not been decided unanimously. Yet.

George1949 wrote:Are more people empathic to abortion now? It would appear that they are based on the facts that abortions are now legal in all states in the USA. However,

"States that had statues making it a crime to have abortions were overturned by U.S. Supreme Court". Which, I beg to claim, means that it's not the people who decided to make abortions legal across the nation, but one judge. Only a plebiscite could do what you claim has been done.

My basic criticism of your claim is that you are mixing up legality with morality; and you mix up one judge's decision to be the opinion of a nation.

For the record, I am all for abortions, I am not judging your stance, I am making only logical responses to what I believe were fallacious reasoning in your text.

For I believe that if you want to convince someone to change their ways, you MUST NOT use fallacious reasoning even if that'd work the best for achieving the change. This is one of my principles, and it is somewhat unique to me, I understand.

"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

This topic is centered on conflicting interests. Ultimately while we all agree that a competent adult with full legal rights has certain expectations of autonomy, different folks think a clump of cells with the potential to become a competent adult with full legal rights, have different opinions on the level of fetal rights from zero to 100% that of a competent adult.

Therefore the right to an abortion is logical for those whose opinion is that a fetus has less than 100% of the rights of an adult, and even the small minority who verbalize that they believe a fetus has full adult rights and status would be in a conundrum since they would be selecting between two groups with equal status, so abortion could still be logical even with that atypical view.

LuckyR wrote:This topic is centered on conflicting interests. Ultimately while we all agree that a competent adult with full legal rights has certain expectations of autonomy, different folks think a clump of cells with the potential to become a competent adult with full legal rights, have different opinions on the level of fetal rights from zero to 100% that of a competent adult.

Therefore the right to an abortion is logical for those whose opinion is that a fetus has less than 100% of the rights of an adult, and even the small minority who verbalize that they believe a fetus has full adult rights and status would be in a conundrum since they would be selecting between two groups with equal status, so abortion could still be logical even with that atypical view.

this is why I am so adamant on vehemently driving it into the minds of those who read my words, that in North America it is religious concerns,and those only, that make people reject the right to abortion. And it does have to do partly with the seven commandments, "thou shalt not kill", but more precisely that the dead fetuses won't be actualized as Christianized people, so they are lost to Him in God's golden eyes.

"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

For the love of "philosophy" (meaning, clarity and communication, in this case) PLEASE decide where the discussion needs to go and lock this thread. Create specific avenues to discuss rather than flail around in several different directions.

SO many directions this discussion can go in. Rather than picking all of them lets please try and pick over particular points that will aide the generality of the topic.

Discuss what is of interest LOCK the thread and open two or three more that can be linked back to these last few pages for context of new readers.

Burning ghost wrote:Another TEN YEAR OLD thread ... with overly general OP:

Is abortion wrong? Is it okay? Why?

For the love of "philosophy" (meaning, clarity and communication, in this case) PLEASE decide where the discussion needs to go and lock this thread. Create specific avenues to discuss rather than flail around in several different directions.

SO many directions this discussion can go in. Rather than picking all of them lets please try and pick over particular points that will aide the generality of the topic.

Discuss what is of interest LOCK the thread and open two or three more that can be linked back to these last few pages for context of new readers.

Yes, let's vote for what is of interest. That would be like herding cats. "Your interest is uninteresting." "No, your interest is the pits." "I've never heard of your interest. Who told you that that is a valid interest?"

Yes, and let's put a traffic cop beside each sentence, to direct which way it should go.

Let's hire some Nazis to whip into shape this bunch of undisciplined rabble and make them think only in one direction in one thread, and in another direction in another thread.

Let's do that. Why not? How can we not do that when Burning Ghost himself or herself commands us to do it that way?

Who are we? Sheep to be directionally herded, or people who need to be heard?

Where is the herd going? Who is being heard? Who does not want to be in the herd to be heard?

"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

The fact that this post is ten years old is irrelevant. Many of us did not join this site ten years ago.

Are you the site’s Geheime Staatspolizei?

My reasoning was not fallacious, just on point. The is what it is reality.

I am not mixing legality with morality or confounding the issue.

“But SHOULD we do it has not been decided unanimously. Yet.”

By unanimously, do you mean everyone in the world should vote on the issue? Whoever has more than 50% of the votes wins. How many people should vote on this in your utopia?

There was no plebiscite. Why would there be one? You are apparently living in your self-made utopia, a fantasy world.

Please join the rest of us who live in reality.

It is moot because it is a pointless debate as to whether abortion is moral. You will never get a plebiscite on this issue and many issues, but that does not change the outcomes. Or is it everyone in your supreme philosophical forum?

You apparently have no respect for the U.S. Supreme Court; so be it. But, you lack of respect does not change this issue which is moot, pointless, just a waste of time.

What is morality?

It will never be decided unanimously as to whether abortions are moral.

Like I said, it is a personal decision based upon your beliefs, with or without merits.

“As of 2017, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 57% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 40% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.”

As it always is, the far right religiously affiliated are against abortion. “Seven-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (70%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. By contrast, 80% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do two-thirds of white mainline Protestants (67%).”

Is this the majority that you need?

Whose morality are you talking about? Are you talking about some ivory tower nonsense or make-believe nonreality?

You might as well be debating whether it is morally right to require that all automobile drivers have driver licenses or that the legal voting age should not be 18, as determined by the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution.

For your elucidation, here is the definition of moot: of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance; purely academic.

“…for those whose opinion is that a fetus has less than 100% of the rights of an adult…, and even the small minority who verbalize that a fetus has full legal rights…”

This is more nonsense and moot conjecturing. Fetal rights are another topic for debate. Currently, the only right a fetus has is to be protected while in the mother’s womb.

Wow, now I am told that God has golden eyes. This man should be showered with accolades since he is the first man to see God. I wonder if he took a selfie.

George1949 wrote:The fact that this post is ten years old is irrelevant. Many of us did not join this site ten years ago.

Are you the site’s Geheime Staatspolizei?

My reasoning was not fallacious, just on point. The is what it is reality.

I am not mixing legality with morality or confounding the issue.

“But SHOULD we do it has not been decided unanimously. Yet.”

By unanimously, do you mean everyone in the world should vote on the issue? Whoever has more than 50% of the votes wins. How many people should vote on this in your utopia?

There was no plebiscite. Why would there be one? You are apparently living in your self-made utopia, a fantasy world.

Please join the rest of us who live in reality.

It is moot because it is a pointless debate as to whether abortion is moral. You will never get a plebiscite on this issue and many issues, but that does not change the outcomes. Or is it everyone in your supreme philosophical forum?

You apparently have no respect for the U.S. Supreme Court; so be it. But, you lack of respect does not change this issue which is moot, pointless, just a waste of time.

What is morality?

It will never be decided unanimously as to whether abortions are moral.

Like I said, it is a personal decision based upon your beliefs, with or without merits.

“As of 2017, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 57% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 40% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.”

As it always is, the far right religiously affiliated are against abortion. “Seven-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (70%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. By contrast, 80% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do two-thirds of white mainline Protestants (67%).”

Is this the majority that you need?

Whose morality are you talking about? Are you talking about some ivory tower nonsense or make-believe nonreality?

You might as well be debating whether it is morally right to require that all automobile drivers have driver licenses or that the legal voting age should not be 18, as determined by the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution.

For your elucidation, here is the definition of moot: of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance; purely academic.

“…for those whose opinion is that a fetus has less than 100% of the rights of an adult…, and even the small minority who verbalize that a fetus has full legal rights…”

This is more nonsense and moot conjecturing. Fetal rights are another topic for debate. Currently, the only right a fetus has is to be protected while in the mother’s womb.

Wow, now I am told that God has golden eyes. This man should be showered with accolades since he is the first man to see God. I wonder if he took a selfie.

Uummm... I believe the Legal Forum is that way.

Perhaps I missed the proposal that in order for someone or for a society to come to a consensus that this or that is moral (or more likely, immoral), that 100% of folks had to agree.

Is abortion wrong? That depends on who is answering the question. A woman who is careless enough to get pregnant, but decides she is not ready for a family will likely say no, abortion is a perfectly acceptable form of birth control. A fundamental religious person would likely say yes, once conception has taken place, it is a human being, so killing it is murder. There are a lot of people somewhere in the middle of this range. I believe abortion should be used only to save the mother's life, and only if all other options have failed. I see in this discussion that some say a fetus is not a human being because it cannot survive on its own. The problem with that argument is that there are a lot of "people" in our society that cannot survive on their own, such as physically or mentally damaged people. Can we just get rid of them, based on this argument that if you cannot make it on your own, you're gone? I think it would be an exceptional child that could be thrown into the world under the age of six that could survive on his own. Does this mean we can kill them when they hit the "terrible twos"? I know a lot of mothers that might wish that to be true.

The problem lies within our medical community. Until they get off their collective duffs and actually make a medical decision, with evidence, that at some developmental point, the fetus must be considered human, though unable to care for itself, we will continue to have this discussion. At one time, the medical community stated that late-term abortions were legal and permissible. This meant they could abort up to seven months. If I met one of these people that made this decision, I would likely punch them in the face, and then tell them they cannot sue me because I was born just before seven months, so they don't consider me a person. I know several persons born earlier in the gestation period than I, one at 27 weeks. She is a charming little girl, and I would take offence if someone told me she is not human. Once the medical community makes a definitive statement then, and only then, can we look into the legal, moral, and ethical ramifications of abortion. Do I expect that community to make this decision? Not likely. Medicine is the only service business in the country that cannot offer quotes and will not warrant their work. They don't like to make such decisions as they seem to wish to promote a vague view of what they do, at least based on my 60+ years of dealing with them. Even my doctors won't offer a guess as to what might be wrong with me without "more tests." Actually, one did. I asked him to give me best and worst case scenarios as to what could happen during surgery, and he said, "best case, we perform the procedure and all is well; worst case, uncontrolled bleeding, sepsis, and death." I told him I appreciated the honesty. Fortunately, the latter scenario did not occur and the surgery went well.

Ratwrangler wrote:Is abortion wrong? That depends on who is answering the question. A woman who is careless enough to get pregnant, but decides she is not ready for a family will likely say no, abortion is a perfectly acceptable form of birth control. A fundamental religious person would likely say yes, once conception has taken place, it is a human being, so killing it is murder. There are a lot of people somewhere in the middle of this range. I believe abortion should be used only to save the mother's life, and only if all other options have failed. I see in this discussion that some say a fetus is not a human being because it cannot survive on its own. The problem with that argument is that there are a lot of "people" in our society that cannot survive on their own, such as physically or mentally damaged people. Can we just get rid of them, based on this argument that if you cannot make it on your own, you're gone? I think it would be an exceptional child that could be thrown into the world under the age of six that could survive on his own. Does this mean we can kill them when they hit the "terrible twos"? I know a lot of mothers that might wish that to be true.

The problem lies within our medical community. Until they get off their collective duffs and actually make a medical decision, with evidence, that at some developmental point, the fetus must be considered human, though unable to care for itself, we will continue to have this discussion. At one time, the medical community stated that late-term abortions were legal and permissible. This meant they could abort up to seven months. If I met one of these people that made this decision, I would likely punch them in the face, and then tell them they cannot sue me because I was born just before seven months, so they don't consider me a person. I know several persons born earlier in the gestation period than I, one at 27 weeks. She is a charming little girl, and I would take offence if someone told me she is not human. Once the medical community makes a definitive statement then, and only then, can we look into the legal, moral, and ethical ramifications of abortion. Do I expect that community to make this decision? Not likely. Medicine is the only service business in the country that cannot offer quotes and will not warrant their work. They don't like to make such decisions as they seem to wish to promote a vague view of what they do, at least based on my 60+ years of dealing with them. Even my doctors won't offer a guess as to what might be wrong with me without "more tests." Actually, one did. I asked him to give me best and worst case scenarios as to what could happen during surgery, and he said, "best case, we perform the procedure and all is well; worst case, uncontrolled bleeding, sepsis, and death." I told him I appreciated the honesty. Fortunately, the latter scenario did not occur and the surgery went well.

Wow, where to start?

First, you are aware that every birth control (including surgical sterilization) has a failure rate, right? Thus a portion of those seeking terminations used birth control, by definition. So, I don't know what you mean by "careless" but most would describe folks using birth control as careFUL, not careless. Are there those who didn't use birth control? Of course, but if you are going to make a procedure illegal for everyone, you must consider every sort of case.

Secondly, I don't personally know of anyone who has vocalized that their view on this topic as: "I believe abortion should be legal because fetuses are not human beings". Just about every thoughtful person acknowledges that a human fetus is, in fact human. There is though, a wide difference of opinion on whether a human fetus has the same legal and ethical rights as a competent, adult human. Most opine that they do not.

Thirdly, since abortion is an issue of competing rights (maternal vs fetal), your attempt to draw parallels with the disabled is in error. Whose rights do the disabled conflict with?

Lastly, as to the the medical community, let's agree that patients drive the demand for abortions, not the providers of the service. As to the later procedures: they are < 2% of all abortions and they are heavily weighted towards either genetic or anatomic abnormalities in the fetus or specifically to save the life of the mother.

I don't know where you get your health care, but in this age of deductibles and co pays, I cannot imagine a system that does not offer quotes on procedures for those with large out of pocket expenses. Basically everyone provides this information, by necessity.

As to warranties, your mechanic will warranty his brake work, but will he be liable if you drive 100 mph towards a brick wall and apply the brakes too late? Of course not. Your surgeon OTOH can be held responsible if he repairs your knee, you gain a bunch of weight then go ski jumping. It all depends what the jury says, maybe yes, maybe no.

If you believe good and bad, right and wrong exist, then abortion is wrong, it is a murder. It just doesn't feel like it. And I believe that arguments like 'its a fetus not a baby and it has not grown enough to be considered a person' are just excuses. It may not be like killing a human because we have awareness of our existence but its like killing an animal, just because you don't want to live with it. But all these only if a concept like 'wrong' exists and if you give life a meaning.

Noobe-Noobe wrote:If you believe good and bad, right and wrong exist, then abortion is wrong, it is a murder.

False. Abortion is not murder, which is a legal charge.

Abortion is not murder; it is killing. So is the killing of adult animals of other species, which are infinitely more sentient than an embryo (which has microbial "sentience", ie, none) and a first trimester foetus. Yet many people worry greatly about a mindless insensate foetus and happily chomp into the meat of an animal who may have had numerous filial relationships with its peers, mate and offspring before ending up on a dinner plate.

Noobe-Noobe wrote:If you believe good and bad, right and wrong exist, then abortion is wrong, it is a murder. It just doesn't feel like it. And I believe that arguments like 'its a fetus not a baby and it has not grown enough to be considered a person' are just excuses. It may not be like killing a human because we have awareness of our existence but its like killing an animal, just because you don't want to live with it. But all these only if a concept like 'wrong' exists and if you give life a meaning.

It is disingenuous to point out the "wrong"ness of abortion as if wrongs are uncommon and to be avoided at all costs. Life is full of wrongs. There are several orders of magnitude more "wrongs" than "rights". In fact if you look at it statistically, wrongs are the norm. For example, trampling on maternal autonomy is also a wrong. Therefore two wrongs. hence why abortion is an issue of competing legal and ethical rights, not a fetal-only perspective debate.